LookingForAnswers Posted March 23, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 23, 2014 I fail to see equivocation anywhere. I am with you, I am not sure how much more clear I could be and I clearly have not changed by position at all. perhaps if I were to use bigger font and prettier colors it would help him to grasp what is being said. I tried that on one post, but words and all sorts of pretty colors but it didnt seem to help much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 23, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 23, 2014 I fail to see equivocation anywhere. First turn your Monitor on then look here, right under shrimp (creole, cocktail, sandwich et al): You can also add "Compelling Reasons" to the List below. "Proof", "Evidence", "Concrete" evidence, "Strong" evidence, "Iron Clad" Proof. Equivocating: 1. the act or an instance of equivocating: 2. logic a fallacy based on the use of the same term in different senses. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/equivocation Basically using the term Proof/Evidence then having a "Grab-Bag" of Different Meanings depending on how you wish to contort your position. See it now? Well I'm off the GRID for the next few days. Leave the Light on for me I'll have some surprises for you when I get back..... especially for the "Science", I mean "Lience", minded folk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted March 23, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted March 23, 2014 You didn't spell out the whole definition given in the link. I don't see here what is defined there. Merriam Webster states thus 1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says Equivocal: : having two or more possible meanings : not easily understood or explained Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 23, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 23, 2014 ========================================================================== So, yet again you refuse to do what you are demanding of others. You demand that I offer something but are unwilling to do so yourself. There is a word for that. This is Hilarious. Let me get this straight.....you equivocate the Terms that YOU provided, and you want me to define them for you You're right, there is a Word for that. So you give me a Closed Box with a Hat in it and you want me to Define the Hat without opening the Box. That makes sense, quite reasonable.....Its' a Duck Hat with quarter size pictures of Babe Ruth, in the Home Jerseys. Close? (Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Interesting twist to the discussion, will have to read the passage and get back to you, but time for pizza and beer right now! Yes it is, Good Luck. It's what they call in the Industry as "Checkmate"......you know, the one you've been in since this started. Oh by the way, the 2 Positions of the discussion (So you don't waste time with completely Irrelevant topics) Enoch: Faith is the Substance....evidence. The Fact that you have evidence, doesn't Preclude the need for Faith. (SEE Peter...Water/Walking/Faltering and Hebrews 11:1 with particular attention to Substance) LFA: "Faith is a belief that is not based on proof, thus the "unseen"." In other words, "Blind" Faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 23, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 23, 2014 You didn't spell out the whole definition given in the link. I don't see here what is defined there. Merriam Webster states thus 1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says Equivocal: : having two or more possible meanings : not easily understood or explained See it ? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 24, 2014 Share Posted March 24, 2014 (Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Interesting twist to the discussion, will have to read the passage and get back to you.... Yes it is.... ....the 2 Positions of the discussion Enoch: Faith is the Substance....evidence. The Fact that you have evidence, doesn't Preclude the need for Faith. (SEE Peter...Water/Walking/Faltering and Hebrews 11:1 with particular attention to Substance) LFA: "Faith is a belief that is not based on proof, thus the "unseen"." In other words, "Blind" Faith. Blind But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 Man's Walk Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12 Sighted Man's Joy So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted March 24, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 24, 2014 Enoch: Faith is the Substance....evidence. The Fact that you have evidence, doesn't Preclude the need for Faith. (SEE Peter...Water/Walking/Faltering and Hebrews 11:1 with particular attention to Substance) LFA: "Faith is a belief that is not based on proof, thus the "unseen"." In other words, "Blind" Faith. Finally you got something right!!! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: i am so proud! Nope, evidence does not preclude the need for faith, as I have been saying all along. Proof on the other hand precludes the need for faith. Seems like someone back in this thread said this... evidence can only take you so far and you have to let faith take over. and this.. but there comes a point where the evidence stops and faith has to finish the journey The problem still seems to lie in the now undeniable fact that you do not understand the difference between evidence and proof. Which would explain your fear of posting your definition of the word proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted March 24, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted March 24, 2014 You didn't spell out the whole definition given in the link. I don't see here what is defined there. Merriam Webster states thus 1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says Equivocal: : having two or more possible meanings : not easily understood or explained See it ? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: It is all clear to me. I'll let you two have at it. I don't see that it's really such a big deal, just undo grief over terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 You didn't spell out the whole definition given in the link. I don't see here what is defined there. Merriam Webster states thus 1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says Equivocal: : having two or more possible meanings : not easily understood or explained See it ? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: You know, you have a very rare opportunity here.... Get with LFA and Equivocate, Equivocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 24, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 24, 2014 You didn't spell out the whole definition given in the link. I don't see here what is defined there. Merriam Webster states thus 1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says Equivocal: : having two or more possible meanings : not easily understood or explained See it ? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: It is all clear to me. I'll let you two have at it. I don't see that it's really such a big deal, just undo grief over terms. Well, words...they mean things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts